Search Beyond Hogwarts:

Reference Desk:
•	Beyond Hogwarts FAQ
•	Wizard to Muggle Currency Converter
•	Harry Potter Spelling Reference

Pages:  <<  <  77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  >  >>

Reader Comments: (Page 87)

Actually, Betty, Harry says in HBP, "If I I'm going to bring as many Eaters as I can with me, and Voldemort too if I can manage it." He was always ready to do whatever it took to bring Voldemort down, and even more so since hearing the prophecy.

And it was actually the fact that Voldemort took Harry's blood that saved him, not the fact that he ingly gave himself up. This didn't save Lily from , so if Voldemort hadn't used Harry's blood the night he returned, Harry would have d. I think the real point in protecting people with these kinds of sacrifices is actually making the sacrifice, going through with it and really giving something up for someone. If everyone lived through it then it wouldn't mean as much. But Harry had a loophole: only Voldemort's greed stood between him and . And the blood Voldemort took was so powerful that Harry managed to live, though against what he intended. So Harry made the sacrifice, his friends were protected, and then there was the miracle of Harry's life.

Posted by C.J. from Utah on October 13, 2007 8:08 PM

Sara, yes I agree, in an ideal world everyone should have access to the truth...but I think it is more complex than that. Truth is not always simple or obvious or even absolute...if there is no absolute truth then which, or should I say whose truth should be told? and who should decide?

Dumbledore did lie to Snape by omission...he let Snape believe his version of reality...but suppose Dumbledore had told Snape the whole truth as he knew it and as a result, Voldemort had discovered that Harry knew about the horcruxes and the ly hallows etc etc Would this not have jeopardised the whole plan and put Harry in even more danger than he was already? Perhaps the greater truth, if you like, of ridding the world of Voldemort was worth the withholding of information to Snape in Dumbledore's eyes? Back to the question of the greater good...and after all, no-one makes decisions in a vacuum...you can't have everyone win all the time. Snape knew what he was getting himself into and I think in purely human terms, Dumbledore loved Harry more than he loved Snape.

Posted by Joe from England on October 15, 2007 09:11 AM

Of the three main characters in the books who would use the Hallows for good, I find it interesting that the eldest brother's Hallow ends up with the eldest character, Dumbledore, while the youngest brother's cloak belongs to Harry, the youngest of the three.

Would Snape have desired the Stone, to bring Lily back for a second chance? Did Dumbledore think Snape would keep the Stone for himself, given the love Snape still held for Lily and so could not reveal the property of the ring which made him try it on?

Posted by Patty from Quincy,Massachusetts on October 17, 2007 06:09 AM

Im sorry if its been asked previously.... In POA Hermione uses a Time turner throughout the school year. In the end the turner is used save more than one life (Sirius and Buckbeak) as Dumbledore puts it. But in PS Dumbledore clearly states to Harry that no one can be brought back from the . Also there weren't any specific rules in POA regarding the use of the Time turner, only that Hermione got it from McGonagal (Or have I missed it?) Why cant the time turner be used to bring back our friends... Better still we can go back to the time when Tom riddle was young and stop him from becoming Voldemort?

Posted by Labeeb from Bangalore on October 19, 2007 01:40 AM

Sirius and Buckbeak weren't brought back from the . Their s were prevented. Well buckbeaks was. Sirius had not d yet.
I don't really think anyone could have stopped Tom Riddle from becoming what he did. He had 'dark' within him even before he knew he was a wizard. He would have had to have been ed to stop him becoming Voldemort and if he was, who knows how the future would have been altered. Maybe Harry would have never became friends with Ron or Hermonie. He would have had a family and friends of his own. Everyone's life would have been affected, so whoever went back in time to Tom Riddle, when they returned to the present, it would have been a very different present. Remember 'Back to the Future II'. As for the time turner itself, in POA it says that McGonagal (or Dumbledore, I can't remember) had to get special permission from the ministry for Hermonie to use it. Remember what Dumbledore said...messing with time is very serious business.

Posted by Betty from Dartmouth, Nova Scotia on October 19, 2007 6:51 PM

Quincy, good point!

also about withholding the truth from snape, don't we all do that sometimes with our loved ones, hide harsh realties from them at times, to protect their mind against torment they might have? snape was doing eveythg he did for the destruction of voldemort, imagine him knowing that voldemort is not mortal (untll all the horcruxes down), it could have lessened his morale somehow, may have weakened his defences (occlumency) and might have put him more in earlier danger. Imagine harry knowing it at 11 (1st yr) or at 15 (5th yr) that he had to sacrifice himself than at time when he was ready to take it, would he have been able to take the pressure then? I think elders somtimes have to put themselves in unethical mode (and it does not go without burdening themselves) to protect their loved ones (Dumbledore loved harry which is clear and I think he at least cared for Snape also).

Posted by swati from India on October 21, 2007 11:10 PM

I think there is a limitation with time turners: you can go back only to things that have happened recently, maybe around...twenty-four, forty-eight hours.

Posted by C.J. from Utah on October 24, 2007 3:46 PM

no, i don't think time turners have time limit but the events in both times (between which one has travled) has to have pieces like jigsaw puzzle which when combined make a complete picture (Hp3 being the best example).

Posted by swati from india on October 24, 2007 9:32 PM

When someone uses a timeturner, do the extra hours add on to his or her chronological age? Is Hermione hours and hours older than she would have been if she had not used the timeturner all year long?
If you go back 17 years to the year of your birth and live them over again, would you now be 34 on your 17th birthday?

Posted by Patty from Quincy MA on October 25, 2007 07:46 AM

Patty: I think it's only logical to assume that the extra hours count towards your physical age. Hermione is now physically older than her calendar years indicate.

But, chronologically, it has to be from the standpoint of the rest of the world. Hermione lived probably an extra year during the events of Prisoner of Azkaban, but at the end of that year she was still only one year older chronologically than when the year started.

Posted by Dave Haber from Los Angeles, CA on October 25, 2007 09:44 AM

But if you use a Time Turner by turning it, how on earth would you figure out how to go back 17 years? And if you can, how is a little Time Turner going to get you there? Something would go horribly wrong. If we remember the Eater in the Department of Mysteries, he got his head stuck in a little jar of time. How problematic! You can only put a certain amount of time in a Time Turner, they're made to go back a couple hours, maybe a day or two, not months or years. The whole thing would greatly upset the events of time. Again, PoA is a great example. Look how much was changed going a few hours back, let alone 17 years!

Posted by C.J. from Utah on October 25, 2007 12:40 PM

Before DH came out I thought those extra three hours of Harry's would affect the time limit of his protection while he lived at Privet Drive. I envisioned swarms of Eaters arriving three hours before midnight on the eve of Harry's birthday.

Posted by Patty from Quincy,Massachusetts on October 26, 2007 07:40 AM

Pages:  <<  <  77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97  >  >>